Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians

Abstract

Key terms: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; cultural blindness; cultural difference; extinguish; land-use planning; land and sea country; native title; terra nullius ; traditional owner. There are two laws. Our covenant and white man’s covenant, and we want these two to be recognised … We are saying we do not want one on top and one underneath. We are saying that we want them to be equal. (David Mowaljarlai, Elder, Ngarinyin people, Western Australia, 1997) Throughout Australia, it is widely accepted that community members affected by contemporary land-use planning processes and environmental decision-making will be able to participate in such activities because they affect the rate and type of development and hence the community’s amenity and well-being. Until very recently, however, this has not necessarily been true for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who have negligible involvement in planning processes and decision-making affecting their traditional country (Jackson 1997b, p. 87), in part because of the cultural blindness characteristic of conventional planning practices. Such practices have been shaped by many of the assumptions underpinning the history of white colonisation of Australia, particularly the belief that Australia was terra nullius , or land belonging to nobody. Since Mabo v State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 ( Mabo (No. 2) ), this assumption is no longer tenable. Instead, planners must recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have strong and continuing connections to land and sea country.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.